AAP info meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just another opinion. You can still do the form, just in case your child doesn't get in, so that you won't wonder if it would have made a difference, I suppose.

This is why it is important. Also, the GBRS with Commentary is subjective and there are cases where certain schools/AARTs actually downplay student's strengths and the parent questionnaire can (sometimes) outweigh the GBRS with Commentary.

I can't imagine this is the case. Obviously I am not on the committee, but if I were, I would weigh a teacher who likely has no bias higher than a parent who loves their child and thinks they are the bees knees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just another opinion. You can still do the form, just in case your child doesn't get in, so that you won't wonder if it would have made a difference, I suppose.

This is why it is important. Also, the GBRS with Commentary is subjective and there are cases where certain schools/AARTs actually downplay student's strengths and the parent questionnaire can (sometimes) outweigh the GBRS with Commentary.

I can't imagine this is the case. Obviously I am not on the committee, but if I were, I would weigh a teacher who likely has no bias higher than a parent who loves their child and thinks they are the bees knees.

As you know, the screening files go from table to table at the Central Screening Committee, and how the screening file is "scored" is dependent on those at the various tables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The the boards, you will discover many 16 gbr kids, also many kids with 150 cogats, and wiscs of 140.


Very true and hard to explain. Our DD had a COGat of 114, GBRS 8 and Wisc 145--made it. Knew others who were automatically in the pool, higher GBRS and no WISC, didn't make it.

Based on several (admittedly anecdotal) reports, it seems the selection committee respects WISC scores. Among other reasons, I wonder if this might be because the Committee has come to believe that the COGAT and NNAT can be "gamed."

[Anonymous]

WISC can be gamed, too, PP. When we were having DC's WISC done at GMU, the tester mentioned which categories can be prepped. I think the implication was that we could prep DC and get a better score next time (DC was low in the areas that could be prepped and high in one that could not). We are not interested in prepping DC for a program that would be too hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if it being based on percentile, means a percentile of just FFX students since it's now the Fairfax County version of the Cogat. So, instead of 30% of kids making 132 and being eligible, they can better control the percentage of kids in AAP. They could make it only the top 10% are eligible, or whatever number they choose. Do you think this is why they're changing it to percentile this year?

[list]BINGO! Thank goodness!

[Anonymous]

They are making it the top 10% in Fairfax County to make the pool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are making it the top 10% in Fairfax County to make the pool

Who/where did you get the 10% number from? Your AART?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are making it the top 10% in Fairfax County to make the pool

If so, that's a 50% cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if it being based on percentile, means a percentile of just FFX students since it's now the Fairfax County version of the Cogat. So, instead of 30% of kids making 132 and being eligible, they can better control the percentage of kids in AAP. They could make it only the top 10% are eligible, or whatever number they choose. Do you think this is why they're changing it to percentile this year?

I don't think so. Percentile is different than percentage. A score of 132 still is at 98 percentile. Changing from scores to percentile may in fact increase the percentage of students in the screening pool since percentiles are also based on the age of the child at the time the test is taken. So a younger child with a score less than, say 132, could still be in a higher percentile and would make it into the screening pool, whereas they would not have with the actual score as a cutoff. On the flip side, an older child with a higher score may be in a lower percentile and could miss out on making the screening pool.

Perhaps they are doing this because the CogAt scores for this year may be unusually lower? I'm wondering because OP specifically mentioned CogAt only and not NNAT.

I thought the percentage is how you score in relation to the rest of the population who takes the test. Therefore, 132 on the COGAT means you scored better than 98% of the national pool taking the test. That same 98% in a pool consiting of only ffx students will probably correspond with a slightly higher score (maybe 134-135), since the overall pool scores higher than a national pool.

[Anonymous]

This will be interesting...how are they going to increase the under-represented group with this new way of norming the test? Wasn't this part of the reason to begin with?

[Anonymous]

Yes, my AART said the number will be what the top 10% score in Ffx County. They don't know what number that is yet until the scores are mailed.

[Anonymous]

Is this all being considered with the overcrowding issues and AAP realignment?

[Anonymous]

With this percentile ranking on the fairfax cogat, how does the age differences of the 2nd graders impact the percentile? i know it impacts the raw score last year but with this new format, i'm not sure how it will work. For instance if an 8.3 year-old ( redshirted) get the Same number right as a 7.2 year-old does that year difference impact the percentile? Also, does the central committee know the age of kids screened? I quite frankly would be very interested if Fcps keeps stats of the ages o kids found center-eligible.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is normed with ages, same as before. Also, the cmte knows everything, including address, about your child.

[Anonymous]

What percentile would the top 10% be. 99 pr 98 percentile?